Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 11 topics

rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: It's just wrong
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/06e32c9cd78fc6f1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, May 27 2009 9:06 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"clifford" <contact@address.net> wrote in message
news:aldh1591t07kgnuu8uiiffv48t4ugue5c8@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 23 May 2009 12:39:45 -0400, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:

> Put it behind us? Not likely. You're analyzing the statue from a white
> POV,
> hoping that it might depict some altruistic effort, when it is anything
> but.

Nah, it's obviously two underage lesbians of different colours playing
water sports. :)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Scenic areas in England
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, May 27 2009 9:10 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:IaqdnaT4tKIANYvXnZ2dnUVZ_gRi4p2d@giganews.com...
> whisky-dave wrote:

>> I assume someone trained at a gun club could well be a better shot than
>> someone
>> off the street with a black market weapon.
>>
>>
>>
> I wouldn't.

> Sometimes training isn't as useful as experience.
Depends where you get experience from I'm guessing by experience you mean
firing a gun rather than studying it's specs in Gun monthly or whatever.

> Ever wonder why the well-trained and equipped British Army was driven out
> of the Colonies?
Thought it was either a political move, as we moved out of most colonies.
But maybe it was down to numbers.

>One reason was they the colonists used their guns to get FOOD, and they
>didn't have money for wasting power and shot, so they learned the first
>rule of gun control. Hit what you aim at!

I'm assuming these guns were 'legal' then.

But you seem to be suggesting that a single shot weapon is more deadly than
say a sub machine gun, because you have to pay for the bullets.

Then maybe all gun should be legal but charge a couple of $1000 for each
round
would be preferred to gun banning, if you truly want a gun for self defence
the law could re-emburse you under the condition that you were using
the gun for self defence if it were proved that was the intention.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, May 27 2009 9:20 am
From: Chris H

In message <gvjogp$sv6$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
dave@final.front.ear> writes
>
>"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:dpKdnQ726P-dJ4vXnZ2dnUVZ_tBi4p2d@giganews.com...
>> whisky-dave wrote:
>
>>> It also seems strange that more police get shot in the USA than the UK,
>>> thankfully it's quite rare in the UK.
>>>
>>>
>> That might be due to the fact that the US has about 6 times the population
>> of the UK. Don't you think.
>
>Possibley, but in the UK 'only' 1 or 2 a year are killed if that, it's
>quite rare.

I think it is quite a few more than that.

>So why doesn't American ban these guns ?

In the same way setting speed limits solves nothing. Baning a type of
gun where you don't know where the majority of them are and who
specifically has them will mean that they will still be out in
circulation

the UK bans only worked because the Police knew EXACTLY where ALL of the
guns were

>Are you suggesting that overall there's some link between the number of guns
>in a society
>and the number of people killed by guns ???????

No. I am not. There is a lot more to it than that.

> >It is still true that most police officers will never fire
>> their gun except at the pistol range during a normal career.
>Seems a waste of time having them then doesn't it.
>Why not carry a knife.

For the same reason careful drivers have issuance. You never know what
lunatic is just around the corner. Besides when armed police turn up you
either fight (and usually loose) or talk to them and for most minor
crimes it is stupid to start shooting.

Ie if I get pulled over for speeding shooting my way out is just landing
myself in more trouble.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, May 27 2009 10:34 am
From: "Stormin Mormon"

I suspect there are plenty of guns still in England. Unless
your population is very, very docile, there would be at
least a few which are quietly held.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:YV8QTmH6gWHKFA5h@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...

the UK bans only worked because the Police knew EXACTLY
where ALL of the
guns were

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, May 27 2009 11:26 am
From: William Black

Stormin Mormon wrote:

> I suspect there are plenty of guns still in England. Unless
> your population is very, very docile, there would be at
> least a few which are quietly held.
>

Why on earth would you think that?

There's less than one policeman for every 1,000 people in most of the UK
(London has roughly twice the number of cops than the rest of the UK when
counted as a percentage of the population)

With those sort of numbers the word you're looking for isn't 'docile' it's
'reasonably happy'.

--
William Black

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, May 27 2009 11:25 am
From: Chris H

In message <gvjtkh$sai$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Stormin Mormon
<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> writes
>I suspect there are plenty of guns still in England. Unless
>your population is very, very docile, there would be at
>least a few which are quietly held.

None legally held BUT estimates are that there are a vast number of
illegal guns. The majority held by criminals but probably a small
number by "law abiding citizens" who have one in the attic for when the
world ends.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nikon- CL-L2 Ballistic Nylon Lens Case Service Advisory
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0dbd4b5f208f274d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, May 27 2009 9:47 am
From: "Frank ess"

me@mine.net wrote:
> On Wed, 27 May 2009 22:17:45 +0900, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> BTW what American cameras are there? (That is US designed AND
>>> manufactured)?
>>
>> The U2 cameras were US made and frigging amazing. I saw contact
>> prints from some test shots once, and was able to see instantly
>> why the Russians were so irritated.
>
> Something similar in the news this week:
>
> http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1380/1
>
> which contains the following link:
>
> http://history.nasa.gov/afj/simbaycam/itek-pan-camera.htm

I was a Photo Interpreter and Photogrammetrist in the Air Force,
middle-late 1950s. Some of that U2 stuff was remarkable, much of it
unusable for reasons other than photo-technical-equipment
shortcomings. Atmospheric conditions didn't seem to inhibit the
shutter fingers, but often rendered the 9x9 and 9x18 images obscure as
to detail.

--
Frank ess

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, May 27 2009 10:54 am
From: Alan Browne

On 26-05-09 17:30, Paul Furman wrote:
> me@mine.net wrote:
>> http://www.nikonusa.com/Service-And-Support/Service-Advisories/CL-L2-Service-Advisory.page
>>
>>
>> See the above web page for photos and return form.
>>
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> May 26, 2009
>>
>> Notice to users of the Semi-soft case CL-L2
>> (Supplied with the AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 200-400mm f/4G IF-ED and sold
>> separately)
>
> Off-topic but what would you think of a 600mm f/4 Ai lens? I'm looking
> at an old beater for $1,700 which no doubt looks ugly & has minor
> scratches but should not have fungus or mechanical failure. Reviews
> suggest it is a really excellent lens. Modern VR versions are $10k. It
> focuses to 3m and is ED-IF. Seems to be about $3k for one in good shape.
> Worst case is send it back (lotsa shipping) or to be serviced ($150 plus
> shipping).

I just sold my Minolta 300 f/2.8 for near $2K (with TC's) and it was in
pretty beat up condition but fine optically.

With the 600mm you are looking at mono/tripod options too. Could be
expensive and heavy.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, May 27 2009 11:14 am
From: frank

On May 26, 7:39 pm, Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote:
> m...@mine.net wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 May 2009 14:30:45 -0700, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Paul
> > Furman <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
> >> Off-topic but what would you think of a 600mm f/4 Ai lens? I'm looking
> >> at an old beater for $1,700 which no doubt looks ugly & has minor
> >> scratches but should not have fungus or mechanical failure. Reviews
> >> suggest it is a really excellent lens. Modern VR versions are $10k. It
> >> focuses to 3m and is ED-IF. Seems to be about $3k for one in good shape.
> >> Worst case is send it back (lotsa shipping) or to be serviced ($150 plus
> >> shipping).
>
> > I would assume this is the older heavier one and not the newest carbon
> > fiber one?
>
> Yeah, here's the new lightweight version an acquaintance rented:http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/2840973808/
> and the meager moon shot he got from that:http://www.flickr.com/photos/sharpshutter/2269020842/in/photostream/
>
> >http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_tele.html
>
> > Much depends one your predicted use. The 200-400 f/4 is at the maximum
> > range of how I would use a long lens, and I frequently mount a TC-14E-II
> > behind it on a D300. I frequently carry this beast for miles and almost
> > always shoot handheld. I could not imagine doing such with anything
> > larger/heavier, not even getting into thinking about non-stabilized. For my
> > use I'm frequently near wide open and at higher iso to even come close to
> > getting a shot. I would think you probably are going to want at least 800
> > iso if using this handheld for many situations, maybe I'm wrong as
> > everyone's use is different. I do love Bjorn's comment about manually
> > focussing. I only wish I could see that well to even contemplate doing
> > such.
>
> I'm fine with manual though it's very difficult with birds in the air
> even at 300mm. I've got a similar lens now (Century 500/4.5 with bad CA
> that the 300/2.8 with converters beats) and a suitable tripod, which I
> do not use much but maybe if the image quality was a good step better
> maybe I would. As you may recall I've been considering upgrading my old
> beater Tokina 300/2.8 MF with an AF-S VR but dang those are around $5k
> and used doesn't really help with price. There are lots of older
> versions but those seem to have flaws and this 600/4 seems to warrant
> the price. But if I wasn't cheap I'd get the 300/2.8 VR and use
> teleconverters to get the same look this is capable of plus the AF-S &
> VR <sigh>. Or your 200-400/4 VR which I've seen and like.
>
> --
> Paul Furmanwww.edgehill.netwww.baynatives.com
>
> all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Try a 400 5.6, its hand holdable and if you want AF can get one that
does a decent job depending on if your camera can focus fast enough.

If you're shooting stuff where you have time to set up a tripod and
all that, get what your wallet can afford. For stuff on the wing, 400
is way to go.

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, May 27 2009 11:17 am
From: frank

On May 27, 6:54 am, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> In message <iqydnbmH9pgGFoHXnZ2dnUVZ_rxi4...@giganews.com>, Rich
> <n...@nowhere.com> writes
>
> >Chinese making the cheap plastic in backyard furnaces?
>
> As opposed to what?
>
> The Chinese make some very good quality stuff as do the Taiwanese and
> the Japanese...
>
> BTW what American cameras are there? (That is US designed AND
> manufactured)?
>
> For real crap we could look at cars like GM and Chrysler used to
> make...
> --
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

When I lived in Rochester, Kodak was always running out press releases
on how great their cameras were in the $200 range, supposedly best in
the world. There's PR and then there's just absolute BS.

I shoot film and digital, wish I had the franchise for missed shots at
some of the events I'm at when you watch people. Besides the obvious
billions of flashes that show up in rock concert videos.

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, May 27 2009 11:21 am
From: frank

On May 27, 8:17 am, "David J. Littleboy" <davi...@gol.com> wrote:
> "Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
> > BTW what American cameras are there? (That is US designed AND
> > manufactured)?
>
> The U2 cameras were US made and frigging amazing. I saw contact prints from
> some test shots once, and was able to see instantly why the Russians were so
> irritated.
>
> --
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

You couldn't afford a Fairchild Camera. Or the film, or the
processing. Kodak did film part, Bausch & Lomb did some of the optics,
there were some others.

Interestingly, film, camera all that fit into a few cubic feet,
weighed less than 1000 lbs and that's with hundreds of feet of 9inch
or 4.5 inch film. Max weight on the SR-71 sensor bays was less than
2000 lbs. Now that's awesome. Per bay.

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, May 27 2009 11:27 am
From: frank

On May 27, 11:47 am, "Frank ess" <fr...@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
> m...@mine.net wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 May 2009 22:17:45 +0900, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
> > "David J. Littleboy" <davi...@gol.com> wrote:
>
> >> "Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
> >>> BTW what American cameras are there? (That is US designed AND
> >>> manufactured)?
>
> >> The U2 cameras were US made and frigging amazing. I saw contact
> >> prints from some test shots once, and was able to see instantly
> >> why the Russians were so irritated.
>
> > Something similar in the news this week:
>
> >http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1380/1
>
> > which contains the following link:
>
> >http://history.nasa.gov/afj/simbaycam/itek-pan-camera.htm
>
> I was a Photo Interpreter and Photogrammetrist in the Air Force,
> middle-late 1950s. Some of that U2 stuff was remarkable, much of it
> unusable for reasons other than photo-technical-equipment
> shortcomings. Atmospheric conditions didn't seem to inhibit the
> shutter fingers, but often rendered the 9x9 and 9x18 images obscure as
> to detail.
>
> --
> Frank ess

A lot of times it was turn camera on at this point, turn it off at
this point. Depending on aircraft, you couldn't see down.

I remember once at Edwards we were trying to slave cameras to RADAR.
So had to get data on where cameras were pointing while RADAR was
guide. Shot thousands of feet, probably tens of thousands of feet of
color motion picture type film. Didn't care if there was an image,
wanted the data off of the side of the film, nothing but blue sky.

They'd put the 400 feet of film on a data reader, lock it down to read
the data on the film and let the thing just run, sounded like an old
printing press clanking away. Read film for days getting data.

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, May 27 2009 11:43 am
From: "David J. Littleboy"

<me@mine.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 May 2009 22:17:45 +0900, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> BTW what American cameras are there? (That is US designed AND
>>> manufactured)?
>>
>>The U2 cameras were US made and frigging amazing. I saw contact prints
>>from
>>some test shots once, and was able to see instantly why the Russians were
>>so
>>irritated.
>
> Something similar in the news this week:
>
> http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1380/1
>
> which contains the following link:
>
> http://history.nasa.gov/afj/simbaycam/itek-pan-camera.htm

I'm pretty sure the U2 photos I saw were at the home of someone who worked
for Itek. This would have been the late 60s, I'd guess.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Neutral density filters
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e0bafecf31ba5f03?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, May 27 2009 10:03 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

ronviers <ronviers@gmail.com> wrote:
>>"It depends upon the particular filture and the manufacturer. Try to
>>use some common sense."
>
>In other words, you do not know.

Quite whining because you're stupid.

>>"Photoshop reduces the intensity. It is not a filter."
>
>Using the Photoshop adjustment layer 'Black and White' there is a
>*filter* option 'Neutral Density'.

It. Is. Not. A. Filter. It is a program which reproduces the effects
of filters.

> It does not affect the colors
>evenly.

And if you already know the answer to the question then why are you
asking?

> Does the uneven distribution correspond to predictable
>imperfections from nd filters?

"It depends upon the particular filter and the manufacturer."

>>"they do not reduce the intensity of all wavelengths equally"
>
>In what way? What casts can be expected?

"It depends upon the particular filter and the manufacturer."

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, May 27 2009 10:08 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

ronviers <ronviers@gmail.com> wrote:
>>"It depends upon the particular filture and the manufacturer. Try to
>>use some common sense."
>
>In other words, you do not know.

Quit whining because you're stupid.

>>"Photoshop reduces the intensity. It is not a filter."
>
>Using the Photoshop adjustment layer 'Black and White' there is a
>*filter* option 'Neutral Density'.

It. Is. Not. A. Filter. It is a program which reproduces the effects
of filters.

> It does not affect the colors
>evenly.

And if you already know the answer to the question then why are you
asking?

> Does the uneven distribution correspond to predictable
>imperfections from nd filters?

"It depends upon the particular filter and the manufacturer."

>>"they do not reduce the intensity of all wavelengths equally"
>
>In what way? What casts can be expected?

"It depends upon the particular filter and the manufacturer."

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, May 27 2009 11:12 am
From: George Kerby

On 5/27/09 1:33 AM, in article
966cffea-e295-4c2a-8b6f-552d07901a37@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com, "ronviers"
<ronviers@gmail.com> wrote:

> It just says, "they do not reduce the intensity of all wavelengths
> equally".
>
> In what way? What casts can be expected? When Photoshop emulates a nd
> filter, what is being changed?
> How are they not perfect?
>
>
"Why is there air?"

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Panasonic LZ-2 memory capacity
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a623bd59781f29e3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, May 27 2009 10:43 am
From: isw

In article <2l5Tl.34498$OO7.9570@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

> isw wrote:
> []
> > Well, actually, it was that article that caused me to ask here if
> > anyone *knew* what sizes the LZ-2 could handle. I have no idea how to
> > find out whether it is an SD 1.0 or an SD 1.01 device.
> >
> > Isaac
>
> Why not ask the manufacturer?

Over the years, I have found that manufacturers are usually not able to
answer my questions in a useful way. I'll write or call and pose the
question, and I'll be referred to the user manual, which is right where
I started.

Isaac

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What's the fuss over 3:2 aspect ratio?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ecd50976e6eb9d55?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, May 27 2009 10:55 am
From: Bruce

eNo <grandepatzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Don't know about the earlier thread, but 3:2 corresponds to the most
>popular 4x6 print size (4:6 =3D 2:3 =3D 3:2).

On the contrary, the 4x6 print size followed the 35mm film format, not
the other way around.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, May 27 2009 11:20 am
From: George Kerby

On 5/27/09 12:05 AM, in article
05f4b0d1-f924-4169-b38b-6448bdc36d32@y34g2000prb.googlegroups.com, "eNo"
<grandepatzer@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 26, 8:05 pm, DMac <d-...@d-mac.info.delete> wrote:
>> An earlier thread about 3:2 Aspect ratio being jumped on by supposed
>> experts got me thinking. I use all three of the popular aspect ratios
>> now being used with digital cameras. I put together an short article on
>> the subject if anyone is
>> interested.http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com/gallery/Aspect-ratio.h
>> tm
>>
>> Doug.
>
> Don't know about the earlier thread, but 3:2 corresponds to the most
> popular 4x6 print size (4:6 = 2:3 = 3:2).
>
> eNo
> http://esfotoclix.com
Afew years back it was 3 1/2 x 5 = 5 x 7. Remember?

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, May 27 2009 11:20 am
From: Alan Browne

On 27-05-09 10:33, sligoNoSPAMjoe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, 27 May 2009 12:38:18 +0200, Alfred Molon
> <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> In article<gvio5n$9lm$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Matt Ion says...
>>
>>> NO rectangular sensor is the perfect shape - the optimum sensor shape is
>>> circular, to match the actual light pattern projected by the lens.
>>> Anything else is a waste of optics.
>> Exactly - and 4:3 is closer to circular than 3:2.
>
> Not really. Few people would choose a circle or a square
> image to a rectangle. That is evidenced from your comments.
>
> Over history the golden rectangle (1.6180339887 ratio) has
> generally been chosen as the most esthetically pleasing.

Which is fairly close to 3:2 (1.5) if that's of any consequence.

In the end the presentation aspect ratio should be pleasing with respect
to the subject(s) in the composition.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Phase One, bunch of damn fools?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f159cc458bc32c1d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, May 27 2009 10:59 am
From: Alan Browne

On 25-05-09 22:13, Matt Clara wrote:
> I use PhaseOne's Capture One software, and have for several years. When
> Capture One moved from version 3 to 4, there were many changes made. As
> in, it's completely different. While I'm sure it's more powerful, it's
> also no longer intuitive. How intuitive was it? I never once read a
> manual or checked a helpfile with version 3. With version 4, I find
> myself consulting it for even little things. BUT, that's not what I'm
> here to bitch about. No, I'm not. I wanted to send a message to them,
> sharing my experience, and I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how
> to simply send them an email. There may be a way if I could remember my
> login info, or cared enough to dig through back up discs to find it.
> Other than that, they want to send you to their "partners," i.e., camera
> stores that sell their goods. Like they care. All of this leave me a bit
> annoyed, and perplexed, as the, "we don't give a shit what you have to
> say" treatment is what one might expect from a really big corporation,
> like MS, not from a tiny niche player like PhaseOne.
> That is all.

I used CaptureOne briefly and wasn't too happy with the interface (a
couple years ago). After that getting OFF of their weekly e-mail advert
list took a couple weeks of trying.

Bizare company in any case. But I do hope to get a PhaseOne back for my
500C/M one day, although probably used.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cala Lily dreamin'
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a8bbad1b7d772d0c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, May 27 2009 11:11 am
From: George Kerby

On 5/27/09 12:07 AM, in article
ea43f932-38d9-4afd-9772-e9694878c91d@x31g2000prc.googlegroups.com, "eNo"
<grandepatzer@gmail.com> wrote:

> #1 and #2 shot with D80 & AI-S 85mm f/2.0 + PK-13 extender tube; #3-5
> shot with D80 & AI-S 55mm micro
>
> #1
> <img src="http://www.esfotoclix.com/flowers/calily-01.jpg"/>
>
> #2
> <img src="http://www.esfotoclix.com/flowers/calily-02.jpg"/>
>
> #3
> <img src="http://www.esfotoclix.com/flowers/calily-06.jpg"/>
>
> #4
> <img src="http://www.esfotoclix.com/flowers/calily-05.jpg"/>
>
> #5
> <img src="http://www.esfotoclix.com/flowers/calily-04.jpg"/>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> eNo
> D80/D90 photos: http://esfotoclix.com

Nice. You need to clean your sensor...

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ford, The Survivor
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6854901652467a29?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, May 27 2009 11:32 am
From: "David J. Littleboy"

"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4a138448$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>> A really good speed checker is http://www.speedtest.net/ as you can
>>> select where you dl from / ul to during the test.
>>>
>>> From San Francisco to Montreal I get: 6.93 Mb /s (about 860 kB /s ) DL
>>> and about 0.75 Mb/s up.
>>
>> From Yokohama to Tokyo I get 51.4 Mb/s down, 50.2 Mb/s up. Zippy.
>
> Effing hell! Do you have fibre or something?

Yep. Fiber's been available here for an age, but we only jumped on the
bandwagon recently when we figured out that the switch to digital for
terrestrial TV broadcasts was going to make our reception worse, not better.
Unfortunately, everything cable (i.e. everything other than Japanese major
network broadcast TV) is still low-def TV, and may not change. Sigh.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cash4gold Scam Ripoffreport.com Scam
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/31e7c2363cb1ed6f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, May 27 2009 12:08 pm
From: maryr345@live.com

Cash4gold.com Pays Ripoffreport.com off to make Thousands of
Complaints to Disappear

Ripoff Report is a sham as a Google search exposes the harsh truth
about the owner or Ripoffreport.com & Cash4gold.com
Now for the other side please read on if you would like to know about
ripoffreport.com
Also google ripoffreport.com if you really want to know about them!
According to recent complaints about Cash4Gold, an unnamed Rip-Off
site took bribes to give Cash4Gold positive press. I checked out
ripoffreport.com's site for Cash4Gold. Ripoff report was singing the
praises of Cash4Gold so high to the point they were disputing their
site users complaints about cash4gold. I can guarantee you they were
taking the bribes! 62 days ago by RipOffReportComplaints.com 0 Votes
Rip-off Report: RipOffReport.com CORRUPT and UNSCRUPULOUS BUSINESS
PRACTICES..

Now do a Google search and type in Rip Off Report into the search box,
then take a look down the pages of all the complaints about them.
There isn't a website or business that even compares to the complaints
that RipOffReport.com has listed against them in the search engines.
From fraud to extortion they have it all along with being sued 40 or
more times. They say the owner "Convicted Felon??" Ed Magedson,
founder and editor of RipOffReport.com has been the target of
(Internet Terrorist). Gee, I wonder why anyone would want to terrorize
such a nice guy.

www.ripoffreportcomplaints.com 62 days ago by
RipOffReportComplaints.com 0 Votes Urgent!
LEGAL NOTICE!
Don't believe anything you read about ANY COMPANY listed on the
infamous RIP OFF REPORT.COM website!

The owner, Ed Magedson, is apparently a WANTED FUGITIVE by the FBI and
also allegedly facing numerous Multi-Million Dollar Lawsuits from
numerous companies WORLDWIDE!

This is how the Rip Off Report SCAM works:

Ed creates very damaging phony "consumer reports" on specific
businesses that are very "reputation sensitive" (i.e.: Doctors,
Service Businesses, Realtors, Attorneys, , Auto Dealers the
Entertainment Industry, etc.). Once he's complete, he submits the
bogus report through numerous search engines (i.e.: Google, Yahoo,
etc.).

Rumor has it that he, in some cases, will have one of his sleazy staff
members actually visit a specific company to get details on how the
company operates. This helps add validity and drama to his report.
Thus, the Extortion plot becomes even easier! He allegedly also will
take his self created defamatory report, copy and paste it, and submit
it to various other Websites, Blogs, etc., to make it APPEAR that the
company has numerous disgruntled customers, further damaging the
company and, again, increasing his chances of Extorting money!

PER AUTHORITIES: Don't be duped by this CRIMINAL!

Within 24 hours, anytime a prospective customer of that business does
a web search, which many consumers these days do, they will then see
the defamatory link appear on that business, usually on the first page
of the search engines results, which then will lead them to a very
disparaging report on that business. That consumer may now have second
thoughts from doing business with that particular company because of
the bogus self created report. That's exactly what Ed wants to happen!
That's how the scam starts!

So, why is Ed doing this? It's called Extortion!

What he then does is approach the business he's damaged (defamed) and
offer's his fraudulent "services" to remove the defamatory commentary,
which usually means the business PAYING RIP OFF REPORT.COM about $50,
000 upfront plus a $5, 000 per month "monitoring fee" for a report
THEY created! What a way to make a living!

Is that a scam or what?

Apparently, many companies have pursued legal action against Rip Off
Report and won!

However, to this day, we are not aware of any judgment obtained
against Rip Off Report that has actually been satisfied. It appears
this company is very good at keeping one step against authorities! Rip
Off Report operates on line and its exact location has been hard to
pinpoint by authorities.

So, what do we know about our 'friend' Ed Magedson? A lot!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cashforgold Warning/Scam (See Youtube.com)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6608ee62b0df6fd0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, May 27 2009 12:09 pm
From: maryr345@live.com

Cash4gold.com Pays Ripoffreport.com off to make Thousands of
Complaints to Disappear

The owner, Ed Magedson, is apparently a WANTED FUGITIVE by the FBI and
also allegedly facing numerous Multi-Million Dollar Lawsuits from
numerous companies WORLDWIDE!

This is how the Rip Off Report SCAM works:

PER AUTHORITIES: Don't be duped by this CRIMINAL!

So, why is Ed doing this? It's called Extortion!

Is that a scam or what?

Apparently, many companies have pursued legal action against Rip Off
Report and won!

So, what do we know about our 'friend' Ed Magedson? A lot!

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 11 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 11 topics - digest

0 comments:

Search

Live Traffic